Guantanamo Hunger Strikers

[Seabird]

Online Petition in Support of
Guantanamo Hunger Strikers
Please Sign Now
Omar Deghayes campaign, in Brighton have managed to arrange an appointment with the American Ambassasor to Europe in Brussels for friday the 21st of October.

They will be asking the Ambassador to allow families, medical doctors and European political representatives access to the Europen residents still detained at Guantanamo. They include British residents on whose behalf the British administration is refusing to act.

The Brighton campaign has setup an online petition that they need as many signatures for as possible by the 20th of October 2005 before their meeting on the 21st. Around 210 of the detainees are on hunger strike and they are entering the 12th week of the strike.

Please therefore circulate this email as widely as possible to get as many signatures as possible by the 20th October. We are aiming to get 1000 signatures by than.

Please click on the link below to sign the petition online.

http://www.gopetition.com/online/7331.html


Thanks for your help.

Naeem Malik
Birmingham Guantanamo Campaign

[The OD]

Seabird,

I dont usually like making blanket statements, but I am disgusted by the cowardice of a lot of your usual fencing partners by their refusal to comment one way or the other on this issue.

I remember a time when a crime was followed by due process even if it was only to go through the motions to make things look fair.

They cant even be bothered with the charade anymore - and why not? How many men in Guantanamo are innocent? I dont know. How many are guilty?
I dont know. I read a case recently about a man and some cohorts who kidnapped an immigrant in limerick and threatened him and threatened that his wife would be murdered by the IRA as they believed he had stolen some jewellery from him - a court found that the kidnappers were criminals and due process was followed - what would the same court think of the perpetrators of this abuse of human rights?

I despair when I hear people actually agreeing with this sort of thing. We can all be self serving until something happens to us and then we wonder why no one seems as indignant as we are at the injustice........well I think I may know why......

[Seabird]

The OD,

I don't know how many are guilty nor innocent either but I do know that they live under appalling conditions that are not suitable for any human being. This is wrong, where is the common decency? How many of these fine politicians that pass out judgement would find it acceptable if they were to end up there. Not everyone is not as fortunate as Martha Stewart, Camp Cupcake What a joke. The conditions in which these detainees live are deplorable whether they are guilty are innocent and just who the hell thinks that treating someone like an animal is acceptable?

Just one more fine example of our wonderfully formatted criminal justice sytem in action.

[agora]

Can someone explain to me why the US is afraid to demonstrate the superiority of the Western democratic system (which, for all it's faults most people do broadly believe in) by giving these men a fair trial? How do they square the idea of a banana republic style 'military tribunal' and long detention without any kind of due process with the idea that the 'war on terrorism' is a war in defense of freedom?

[michael1965]

The conditions in which these detainees live are deplorable whether they are guilty are innocent and just who the hell thinks that treating someone like an animal is acceptable?

Take a look at the article by Tom Clonan in today's Irish Times. Conditions in Gitmo are far from deplorable for most of the inmates. They are better than Mountjoy. Granted he didn't get to see the section where the most trouble-some inmates are held, but it would be interesting to ask his opinion on whether any prisoners are treated like animals.

That's not to say I agree with the whole thing. Personally, I don't think there is any justification for what they are doing there.

But it weakens the argument against it, by exagerating the problem.

[agora]

Does the fact that Clonan was forbidden to interview any of the inmates or any of the personnel not specifically chosen for him by the authorities not suggest that there was a lot more going on in Gitmo than he was able to see? If you read the article I think it's pretty clear that Clonan is aware that there was much detail hidden from him.

[sid]

Can someone explain to me why the US is afraid to demonstrate the superiority of the Western democratic system (which, for all it's faults most people do broadly believe in) by giving these men a fair trial? How do they square the idea of a banana republic style 'military tribunal' and long detention without any kind of due process with the idea that the 'war on terrorism' is a war in defense of freedom?

because no American staff officer has ever put the words 'cause' and 'effect' into the same paragraph.

they have no concept of demonstrating the moral superiority of western values because they believe them to be 'just there, ok'. a belief that because they do something it can't be morally - or politically - questionable, and that anyone who does question it is obviously some islamo-fascist-loving homosexual communist.

American counter-insurgency doctrine is to 'the war against terror' - TWAT for short - what Ian Paisley is to Unionism: its greatest proponant, and the one who does it most damage.

[Libero]

Can someone explain to me why the US is afraid to demonstrate the superiority of the Western democratic system (which, for all it's faults most people do broadly believe in) by giving these men a fair trial?

Because they (the US authorities) believe these men to have been members of Al Qaeda and committed to waging war against the interests of the United States of America.
At the same time, they know that there is little chance of proving a case against these men to the requisite criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt; the men were picked up in places like Afghanistan, evidence would be inadmissible, witnesses are unreliable.

I'm not endorsing the decision of the US authorities, I'm just explaining it.

I'm quite attached to human rights and the idea of fair judicial process myself, but many of those criticising Guantanomo Bay and everything else have made no practical suggestions as to how the US should deal with Al Qaeda members apprehended in Afghanistan, apart implying or demanding that they be let go.
Let's not get too sentimental here; these fellas picked up in the field are pretty bad people and it isn't very realistic to ask that the US just smiles sweetly and lets them go, especially coming from people who have done little to protest the Offences Against the State legislation in their own country.

[agora]

I'm quite attached to human rights and the idea of fair judicial process myself, but many of those criticising Guantanomo Bay and everything else have made no practical suggestions as to how the US should deal with Al Qaeda members apprehended in Afghanistan, apart implying or demanding that they be let go.
.

The vast majority of people who have commented on Gitmo have demanded no such thing. The general feeling would be that they should be put on trial to have a fair chance of explaining themselves. If after an open and due process they are found to be guilty they should have the full rigours of the law applied to them. If there is not enough evidence that would stand up in court against a prisoner and the authorities know this, then they should be released, if there is enough evidence, try them. I think that's a reasonable enough position to take.

[Libero]

If there is not enough evidence that would stand up in court against a prisoner and the authorities know this, then they should be released, if there is enough evidence, try them. I think that's a reasonable enough position to take.

Yes, it is a reasonable enough attitude, in my opinion.

The thing is, I don't think you're being reasonable in looking at the whole situation.

We all know that there is not enough evidence (or evidence of a high enough quality) to secure convictions. That's why the US authorities have conjured up this other process. And it is why we shouldn't pretend that the regular due process will lead to anything other than acquittal.

Of course opponents of Guantanomo-style "justice" aren't actively calling for the release of these men, but they should be honest enough to admit that objectively they are advocating their release.

These objectors obviously aren't comfortable with that conclusion, or they wouldn't be so conspicuous in avoiding it, or being disingenuous in pretending that ordinary trial could still result in conviction.

My own objection - apart from a deep unease at the attitude of the US authorities - is towards having to listen to such evasive waffle from critics of the administration, especially when they are so deceptive about what their alternative is. I also have difficulty hearing the USA being lectured about fairness in combatting terrorism from a Labour party (and others on the Irish left) who seem to have little problem with our Offences Against the State legislation.

The general feeling would be that they should be put on trial to have a fair chance of explaining themselves.

As with our criminal legal system, there would be no onus on the accused to say anything. The prosecution has to prove the case.